Rotating Galaxies: Milky Way, Local Group & Beyond

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter PhanthomJay
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Galaxies Rotating
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the motion of the Milky Way and other galaxies in the Local Group, exploring concepts of orbit, gravitational binding, and the dynamics of larger cosmic structures such as the Great Attractor. Participants examine whether galaxies orbit a common center, the implications of cosmic expansion, and the nature of movement on a universal scale.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that the Milky Way and other galaxies in the Local Group do not orbit each other but are gravitationally bound, with a center of mass for the Local Group.
  • Others argue that the term "orbit" may not be appropriate due to the complexities of cosmic expansion and galaxy mergers.
  • A later reply questions the existence of a center to the universe, suggesting that the idea of a rotating universe is discredited.
  • Participants discuss the movement of the Local Group toward the Great Attractor, suggesting this motion is along a space-time geodesic rather than a traditional orbit.
  • Some express uncertainty about whether the Great Attractor itself is moving toward another massive cluster or is stationary in space.
  • There is a contention regarding the distribution of galaxy rotation axes, with some asserting that a random distribution does not support the idea of a rotating universe.
  • Several participants emphasize the continuous nature of movement in the universe, suggesting that everything is in motion without a definitive endpoint.
  • One participant raises the possibility of a future scenario where galaxies attract together again, leading to another Big Bang, while another counters that the likelihood of this scenario is diminishing due to the universe's expansion.
  • There is a discussion about the implications of the universe's expansion, with some suggesting that a "Big Freeze" is more likely than a Big Crunch.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views regarding the nature of galaxy motion, the appropriateness of terms like "orbit," and the future of the universe. The discussion remains unresolved, with no consensus on several key points.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on definitions of motion and orbit, as well as unresolved questions about the nature of the Great Attractor and the universe's ultimate fate.

PhanthomJay
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
Messages
7,201
Reaction score
527
Does the Milky Way galaxy, along with several other galaxies in the Local Group, orbit about the centre of that Local Group, and does the center of the Local Group orbit about some other center, etc.??, or is it just the stars that orbit their galactic centers?
 
Space news on Phys.org
PhanthomJay said:
Does the Milky Way galaxy, along with several other galaxies in the Local Group, orbit about the centre of that Local Group, and does the center of the Local Group orbit about some other center, etc.??, or is it just the stars that orbit their galactic centers?

Globular clusters can orbit galaxies, but to answer your question, no. There is no barycenter around which galaxies in the Local Group or otherwise orbit, they are simply gravitationally bound.

To edit, I take this back. Our galaxies do not orbit EACH OTHER, but the local group has a center of mass, and looking at the supercluster we belong to, we do orbit a center of mass. Our Local Supercluster (Virgo et al) is the limit to this observation.
 
Last edited:
To correct again, it is better to say there is a common rotation and merger, but orbit is probably not the correct term. You have to consider the expansion of space, the merging of galaxies, and the time and distance involved. If you take this to a logical extreme, then there would be a center to the universe around which there is rotation, and the notion of a rotating universe alone is a tough one. The notion that our universe has a center seems AFAIK to be discredited.
 
OK, thanks. I gather that the Milky Way and our Local Group of galaxies is moving toward some mysterious huge mass known as the Great Attractor, and that such motion is along a space-time geodesic, rather than an orbiting type circular or elliptical motion around it?'
 
PhanthomJay said:
OK, thanks. I gather that the Milky Way and our Local Group of galaxies is moving toward some mysterious huge mass known as the Great Attractor, and that such motion is along a space-time geodesic, rather than an orbiting type circular or elliptical motion around it?'

It seems to be the case, or something close to that. The problem is that every time you bump up the scale to understand problem A, you find that you've uncovered a new need to increase the scale again.
 
If the Milky Way is 'orbiting' about the center of the Local Group, and that center in turn is moving at some ridiculous speed toward the Great Attractor, is the Great Attractor also moving toward some other ridiculously large massive cluster, or does the buck stop there and the Attractor is just sort of hanging in free space (not including space-time expansion) without any particular motion??
 
PhanthomJay said:
If the Milky Way is 'orbiting' about the center of the Local Group, and that center in turn is moving at some ridiculous speed toward the Great Attractor, is the Great Attractor also moving toward some other ridiculously large massive cluster, or does the buck stop there and the Attractor is just sort of hanging in free space (not including space-time expansion) without any particular motion??

Beats me!
 
This is all well and good, but, does not suggest the universe is rotating. The axis of rotation of local galaxies are randomly distributed. There is no preferred distribution as suggested if the universe itself was rotating.
 
Chronos said:
This is all well and good, but, does not suggest the universe is rotating. The axis of rotation of local galaxies are randomly distributed. There is no preferred distribution as suggested if the universe itself was rotating.

I never said that it was, or implied that it was, although it's possible it seems very unlikely.
 
  • #10
Let's forget the words 'rotation' or 'orbit'.The Earth is moving around the sun. The sun is moving around the center of the Milky Way. The Milky way is moving around the center of the Local Group. The center of the Local Group is moving toward that Great Attractor. Everything is moving. I see no reason why the Great Attractor is also not moving toward something, and that something must be moving toward something else. Movement without end, Amen?
 
  • #11
PhanthomJay said:
Let's forget the words 'rotation' or 'orbit'.The Earth is moving around the sun. The sun is moving around the center of the Milky Way. The Milky way is moving around the center of the Local Group. The center of the Local Group is moving toward that Great Attractor. Everything is moving. I see no reason why the Great Attractor is also not moving toward something, and that something must be moving toward something else. Movement without end, Amen?

Movement to the limits of our current observational capacity, amen. ;)
 
  • #12
And then eventually they will all attract together again and cause another Big Bang?
 
  • #13
PhanthomJay said:
...does the buck stop there and the Attractor is just sort of hanging in free space (not including space-time expansion) without any particular motion??
Pretty hard to tell. It gets pretty sketchy to decide what is movement at this scale. Since we don't really know what this Great Attractor is or where it is, you can deduce that we're sort of poking about in the dark.
 
  • #14
Bluedust said:
And then eventually they will all attract together again and cause another Big Bang?

That scenario's likelihood is vanishing rapidly (if not completely debunked already). The expansion of the uiniverse is overwhelming the attraction on larger scales. The Big Freeze is looking to be the more likely. We end up in an observable universe devoid of any other galaxies but those gravitationally bound to us. Beyond a few million light years, the universe is completely barren.
 
  • #15
DaveC426913 said:
That scenario's likelihood is vanishing rapidly (if not completely debunked already). The expansion of the uiniverse is overwhelming the attraction on larger scales. The Big Freeze is looking to be the more likely. We end up in an observable universe devoid of any other galaxies but those gravitationally bound to us. Beyond a few million light years, the universe is completely barren.

It really puts a whole new spin on, "this is a great time to be alive"... :wow:
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
898
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 49 ·
2
Replies
49
Views
6K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
4K
  • · Replies 53 ·
2
Replies
53
Views
7K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K